McNair says there was no union “quid pro quo” for Redskins-Cowboys cap penalties

Posted by Mike Florio on April 2, 2012, 7:48 PM EDT

Getty Images

Included in Daniel Kaplan’s item on the salary cap totals from Monday’s SportsBusiness Journal was an intriguing assertion from Texans owner Bob McNair.

As to the widely-reported notion that the 2012 salary cap was bumped to $120.6 million per team in exchange for the NFLPA’s agreement to permit a total of $46 million to be stripped from the Cowboys and Redskins in 2012 and 2013 cap space, McNair contends there was no “quid pro quo.” Instead, McNair claims that the union was guaranteed to receive $142.4 million per team in salary and benefits, and that the union adjusted 2012 benefits in order to nudge the per-team spending limit to $120.6 million.

If that’s true, then why did the NFLPA agree to the cap penalties? If the union got nothing in return for agreeing to permit $46 million to be taken from teams that tend to spend all of it and redistributed to teams that may not even spend all the space space they already have for 2012, then why did the union agree to it?

Surely, the union got something. Any suggestion otherwise by McNair or anyone else connected to the league creates the impression that the NFLPA did something that undermines the interests of its constituents, with no benefit in return.

For all the functionally illiterate among you, “quid pro quo” is Old Italian for “you scratcha my back, I scratcha you back.”.

feck12a says:Apr 2, 2012 8:11 PM

I can’t wait till everything comes out. More and more I believe this is John (silver spoon) Mara’s doing. I’m shocked the league hasn’t backed down, you can bet the more info snyder/jones get the more pissed off they will become. This could blow up the league if it hits the federal courts

thraiderskin says:Apr 2, 2012 8:14 PM

Because that would look fraudulent…

Which it is.

khuxford says:Apr 2, 2012 8:17 PM

I have to believe that, if there were proof that the NFLPA was basically an accessory after the fact to the collusion, it could lead the government to give the players a mechanism for ousting their leadership and possibly nullifying anything they agreed to. That would be why McNair would try to float this lie.

I wonder if its due to brain damage from all the blows to the head of the NFL player reps?

bringbacktheflex says:Apr 2, 2012 9:06 PM

If the “union” was truly a “union” they wouldn’t stand for penalizing the players on the Cowboys and Redskins. Hmm. $46 million less to spend… Sounds like the Redskins players are going to get less money this year, or at least no new extensions or adjustments. The teams might have to cut players a year earlier than they had hoped to get under the new cap.

According to the Supreme Court, the league is a single entity. How can it collude if it is a single entity? This will not go to any court.

bigbadal21 says:Apr 2, 2012 9:36 PM

How in the world can you call collusion when referring to the uncapped year. You get a certain lawyer whom I can’t name or this post will be deleted suggest “collusion” and everybody starts posting like they are Perry Mason. What is an uncapped year in the NFL? The answer is whatever the league and the NFLPA decides it to be. They decided it to be no floor and no ceiling in the uncapped year. You could spend as much or as little as you wanted. What you could not do in an uncapped year is rework contracts to increase the amount alloted to the uncapped year and reduce the cap hit in future years. They made it very plain during the year that any team who did this would be penalized. Fans and Jerry in particular scream “The league approved the contracts” Of course the league approved the contracts. There was nothing in the contracts that made them illegal. However, any cap savings in the future would not be honored. This was explained to them before the contracts were offered and when the contracts were approved by the league. So live with it.

@bigbadal21: “What you could not do in an uncapped year is rework contracts to increase the amount alloted to the uncapped year and reduce the cap hit in future years. They made it very plain during the year that any team who did this would be penalized.”

Right…they threatened that behind closed doors, but no where was it to be found in the CBA. Because it wasn’t agreed upon.

Learn to read and write coherently before you try to trash talk your betters.

Hey bigdad, why is that kind of contract restructure allowed in all other years, and suddenly teams are not allowed to do it in the uncapped year. This is the same thing every team does, every year to gain cap space. It’s business as usual. There were no rules against it, nothing in any cba or agreement that restricted that. It was an under the table agreement. Why? To restrict salary’s in the ‘uncapped year’ that was not really an ‘uncapped year’….hint, hint…if you know what I mean. It was collusion, and no…. both teams should not live with it. Mara gains his own ‘unfair advantage with his committee’s ruling.

PLEASE KEEP PRESSING THIS ISSUE! There was definitely a bribe between NFL and NFLPA and it needs to be brought to light especially in the wake of Roger Goodell doling out epic fines and suspensions all to “protect the integrity of the league” . It seems Goodell has a God complex and with that amount of power and the BILLIONS the NFL make there needs to be transparency and accountability. It reeks of wink wink, elbow nudging, back room dealing,and Corruption. The man playing God better be squeaky clean himself

epicurean56 says:Apr 2, 2012 10:50 PM

@BigDad – I see what you and the league are saying. But still, at the end of the day it is an uncapped year and the teams could make whatever contracts they liked (JUST LIKE THEY USED TOO).

If the league didn’t want an uncapped year, then they should have signed a new contract before the uncapped year hit. The old contract required an uncapped year to force the owners back to the bargaining table before it ran out. But the league didn’t like what they had done, so (most of) the owners colluded (i.e they had a secret agreement) not to violate the “spirit of the cap”.

What the hell is that? If they wanted a cap they should have negotiated in good faith for a new contract. No contract, no cap, TFB!!

tezz123 says:Apr 2, 2012 11:07 PM

Most of the conspiracy or collusion arguments are quite flawed or ridiculous. I guarantee you that Jones/Snyder will not be using any of those arguments to win the arbitration hearing.

I agree with epicurean and take it a step further. You don’t have any violation of a written rule and their penalty phase was bogus. Right before free agency starts? They should have been informed of this as it happened. Kind of appears that the nfl is making up stuff as they go along. On top of that….competitive edge? Give me a break! That would be underspending like what the Bucs did!

If the “union” was truly a “union” they wouldn’t stand for penalizing the players on the Cowboys and Redskins. Hmm. $46 million less to spend… Sounds like the Redskins players are going to get less money this year, or at least no new extensions or adjustments. The teams might have to cut players a year earlier than they had hoped to get under the new cap.

It doesn’t sound like a “union” to me.
———————————————————-
let me start by saying om a skins fan and completely agaist the penalty for all the obvisous reasons, but im also a union man. With that being said this is a such an ignorant and uneducated response, the players on the redskins/cowboys are under contract already therefor the penalty does effect their earnings in the slighest. No matter how the cap works out the respective teams are still obligated to pay out the contract. The only agruement the union has is that the penalty wouldnt allow teams to spend the same amount as in pryor years, which the NFL took care of when they gave the money to 29 other teams so that the league spending limit did not change. As far as im concern the league did right by the union and the NFL players.

denverscott says:Apr 3, 2012 12:14 AM

khuxford says: Apr 2, 2012 10:11 PM

@bigbadal21: “What you could not do in an uncapped year is rework contracts to increase the amount alloted to the uncapped year and reduce the cap hit in future years. They made it very plain during the year that any team who did this would be penalized.”

Right…they threatened that behind closed doors, but no where was it to be found in the CBA. Because it wasn’t agreed upon.

Learn to read and write coherently before you try to trash talk your betters.

Bigbadal21 is right. All the teams were sent a written letter warning that if they reworked contracts in this fashion there would be penalties. The owners ARE the league fool. The players are hired help plain and simple. Players can be replaced in a heart beat but how many billionaires are out there? Think on that captain coherent. It had NOTHING to do with the CBA and everything to do with agreements between business partners.

For those of you saying the NFL is single entity. Yes you are right. So you get a cookie.

However, individual teams can be considered as colluders since they operate as rivals within the league. It is no different than if you were a salesman at a company and all the other salesmen decide to cut you out of sales by dividing up sales calls evenly among themselves to cut you out. You all work for the same company but it is still collusive. You can sue them or the company for letting it happen.

As far as the NFL, they get around collusion by having a CBA to spell out what teams and players can and can’t do financially. Yet there was no CBA in 2010.

So without rules the NFL did not want to give the impression of collusion so they let teams do what they want with only vailed threats. Then, after the fact, use the CBA as a way to punish who might have went waaay to far in their spending but who didn’t break any rules.

I would go on but people who think its not collusion clearly don’t understand collusion.

blackqbwhiterb says:Apr 3, 2012 5:41 AM

The union never would have agreed to the penalty at the time, so the league waited until a year later AND agreed to split the cap space up between the other teams. That coupled with De Smith’s need for re-election got him and his minions on board. The fact that only the Redskins and Cowboys were punished, not the Bears with Peppers’ deal, shows the obvious rich vs. poor battle among owners still goes on. As far as Mara doling out the punishment, that speaks for itself.

khuxford says:Apr 3, 2012 8:10 AM

tezz123 says:
Apr 2, 2012 11:07 PM
Most of the conspiracy or collusion arguments are quite flawed or ridiculous. I guarantee you that Jones/Snyder will not be using any of those arguments to win the arbitration hearing.
_______________

@denverscott: Yes, sir, I surely tune in for the owners every week. I’m sure there aren’t thousands of business-savvy folks out there that could run the franchises at least as well as current ownership. No, the ability to run a franchise is born from that rare combination of genetics and years of intense physical training that most people shrink from.

Indeed, as the owners are the league, they can engage in whatever illegal manipulation they want and should never have anyone dare to call them on it. We’re not having this conversation because two individuals who ARE THE LEAGUE have been punished by a group of others who ARE (simultaneously) THE LEAGUE, creating a contradiction inherent in your own declaration.

It’s sad that I feel the need to point this out, but the above is sarcasm. Given that you seemed to believe all of that above, I couldn’t take for granted that you’d get the sarcastic nature of it. Because, after all, you are an idiot.

The more I hear from these owners who voted for this penalty the more sleazy and petty they sound.

epicurean56 says:Apr 3, 2012 11:24 AM

@khuxford – yes, the owners ARE the league. What you may be missing here is the way the anti-trust exemption works for them.

You see, in most industries, owners are allowed to offer whatever salaries they want to any employee they want (see Wall Street bankers). In the NFL, the owners came up with a deal with the NFLPA that they would DRAFT players out of college. Those players can now only negotiate with one team. The draft IS the ant-trust exemption. No NFLPA? No CBA and no anti-trust exemption.

If it can be proven that owners colluded to keep salaries down in any way, shape or form during the uncapped year (including renegotiating existing contracts), the NFL could very easily lose their ant-trust exemption.

If the “union” was truly a “union” they …
———————————————————-
… this is a such an ignorant and uneducated response, the players on the redskins/cowboys are under contract already therefor the penalty does effect their earnings in the slighest….

No matter how the cap works out the respective teams are still obligated to pay out the contract. The only agruement the union has is that the penalty wouldnt allow teams to spend the same amount as in pryor years, which the NFL took care of when they gave the money to 29 other teams so that the league spending limit did not change. As far as im concern the league did right by the union and the NFL players.
=====================

Wow. Naive much?

You mean the Cowboys and the Redskins didn’t get rid of any extra player to get under their salary caps? You think that teams will pay a full contract if they don’t have to? Please! Don’t be so dumb. Every day we’ve read about teams getting rid of players to get under the cap, or not bringing someone back to stay under their cap.

Unions are one of the major problems with our economy right now. They were once a necessary part to ensure worker safety and fair pay checks. Now they are an outdated and corrupt industry to themselves. Do you know what “extortion” is? If I came to your business and said ‘give me money or I’m going to shut you down’, that would be OK with you? And if you didn’t give me money I would threaten the people who work there and scare off your customers. That’s OK with you?

Ah America.

khuxford says:Apr 3, 2012 10:56 PM

@epicurean56: I was impressed with your initial posts, but then you went ahead and demonstrated such poor reading comprehension as to think I said anything in disagreement with you.